I wish that it were. Unfortunately, it is actually the case.
Todd
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:42 AM Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia(a)zog.org> wrote:
This is sarcasm, right? Right?
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen, <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a
huge volume of garbage
pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn
Pokemon,
and we'll eventually do it with junk football
"biographies", with
"football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
"article".
As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
show sourcing immediately.
Todd
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Agreeing/asserting that the English Language
Wikipedia has a toxic
editing
> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads
at
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
>
> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because
we
> have annual Arbcom elections, and a
candidate can always criticise the
> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the
last
> year or two, ignoring those where we know
there was private
information,
> these are the cases where I would have
differed from the existing
arbs. I
> would have voted to accept cases
xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and
> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction
zzzz,
> zzzzz"
>
> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have
argued
> for, among other things:
>
>
> 1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so
quickly
to
blocks.
2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
find
them but A7s could stick around for at least
24 hours
3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
edits.
None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
example
> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit
conflict
understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
where
> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit
one
the
conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
deletionists
even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at
editors who decline
deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
people
you haven't dealt with before, cultural
nuances between different
versions
> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in
their
native
language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
other
Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a
straight talking culture
might
think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic,
even when I think I'm
being
nuanced and diplomatic.
Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
communicated
> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their
problem
was that
their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
Wikipedia.
But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the
WMF if only we knew
what
> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed
reason
where I
and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
now
> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic
way.
Jonathan
> > Hoi,
> > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this.
What I
> > find is that in stead of pointing to
the WMF, it is first and
foremost
> > the
> > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable
and
> > > finally has to deal with
consequences. True to form, no reflection
on
en.wp
> practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>